The Framing Effect: Why We Prefer It When the Glass Is Half Full

Suppose your doctor has determined that you require surgery. He might inform you that your chance of making it through the procedure is 90%. That probably sounds fairly wonderful. Additionally, he can inform you that your likelihood of passing away while at the table is 10%. Even if the probabilities are the same, you would likely react differently. The framing effect, a prevalent cognitive bias, is to blame for this. Let's examine how it operates and what you can do to prevent it.

What does framing effect mean?

The framing effect highlights how the way we are presented with options tends to have more of an impact on our decisions than the actual content of the information.

Half-full or empty glass

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, two Israeli psychologists, were the first to demonstrate the framing effect. In a 1981 paper,[1] they presented participants with a conundrum that became known as “The Asian Disease Problem.” They instructed the participants in their study to pretend that the United States was getting ready for the advent of a rare and deadly Asian sickness that was predicted to kill 600 people. The participants were offered a choice between two alternative therapies.

A "gain frame" emphasizing gains was shown to 50 percent of the participants.

Program A, in which 200 people would unquestionably be saved, and Program B, in which there was a 1/3 chance that 600 people would be saved and a 2/3 chance that no one would be saved

A "loss frame" emphasizing the drawbacks was shown to 50% of the participants:

Program C, in which 400 people would unavoidably perish, or Program D, in which there was a 2/3 chance that 600 people would perish and a 1/3 chance that nobody would perish

There shouldn't have been a difference in choice as Programs A and C and Programs B and D were logically similar; yet, in the positive frame, 72% of participants chose Program A over Program B, while in the negative frame, 22% preferred Program C over Program D.

Since then, three distinct categories of frames have been discovered:

An object and its attributes are involved in attribute framing. In these situations, people are more likely to favor the feature that is favourably framed. For instance, when the team's prior performance is portrayed in terms of successes rather than failures, managers are more inclined to allocate funding to R&D projects[4] and consumers are more likely to choose meat[3] labeled as "75% lean" rather than beef described as "25% fat."

Goal framing is a technique where people are persuaded to engage in a certain desirable action and either the benefits of doing so are stressed or the drawbacks of not doing so are emphasized. In these situations, people are more likely to engage in the desired action when the drawbacks of doing so, rather than the benefits of doing so, are highlighted. For instance, when told that "women who do BSE have an increased chance of finding a tumor in the early, more treatable stages of the disease," women are more likely to perform a breast self-exam[5] than when told that "women who do BSE have a decreased chance of finding a tumor in the early, more treatable stages of the disease."

The framing effect is regarded as one of the most significant biases in decision-making and has been noted in a wide range of settings, including healthcare, political messaging, time and money management,[6] consumer choice,[7] and healthcare,[8] including time and money management.

In a previous paper[10], Kahneman and Tversky put forth the idea of "prospect theory," which holds that we frequently weigh potential advantages and losses while making decisions and that the prospect of losing something causes us much more pain than the chance of getting something. As a result, we are more inclined to wish to prevent losing money than to make a similar profit. Furthermore, a potential loss is preferable to a certain loss and a certain gain is preferable to a likely gain.

This implies that when something is portrayed as a win (saving lives) and is presented in a positive light, we become more risk averse. In the case of the Asian Disease, the possibility of saving 200 lives with certainty is preferable over the riskier possibility of saving 600 lives with a 1-in-3 chance. When something is portrayed in a negative light and we are faced with a loss (people dying), we are more willing to take risks; the certain loss of 400 lives is less tolerable than the 2-in-3 probability of 600 people dying.

Because we are lazy thinkers and picking a gain that is definite involves less cognitive work than choosing one that is risky[11], we are particularly prone to the framing effect. On the other hand, deciding between an assured loss and a risky loss necessitates the same level of mental work. Additionally, because there is no prospect of a positive outcome, selecting a certain loss over a hazardous loss might be more emotionally draining. We naturally favor the alternative that will consume the fewest resources and cause the least amount of stress since we can only pay attention to and use a finite amount of information at a given time. Regrettably, this choice won't always be the best.

We are all individual beings, and as such, each of us makes decisions in a distinct way. For instance, studies[12] utilizing brain scans have demonstrated that individuals with stronger emotional regulation are better able to mitigate the effects of the framing effect.

A person's specific situation matters as well. The baseline from which they are negotiating a plea deal will be imprisonment rather than freedom, and pleading guilty will be seen as an action that will result in their earlier release—a gain—rather than as an action that will keep them in prison—a loss. This may increase their willingness to accept a plea deal, according to research on plea bargaining[13].

Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the framing effect grows with age: young children are less influenced[14] by the effect than older children, who in turn are less influenced by the effect than adults.

In addition, older persons[16] are more susceptible to persuasion than young adults.

The only way to prevent this bias, like most others, is to exercise your critical thinking skills.

[17] Start by paying great attention to the material being delivered and resisting the urge to haste. According to research, hasty decisions make someone more susceptible to the framing effect[18]. Instead, gather as much information as you can about each alternative from a variety of both negative and good sources before making a decision. Consider the reasons behind the person's choice before making one. Think about different options. There might be a different choice with a better result.

You can also try to mentally reframe the information to convey it in the opposite way, or "reverse the frame." As opposed to "this product leaves 5% of germs," "this product destroys 95% of germs" Remember, however, that negative frames are "stickier":[19] it is more challenging to change from a negative frame to a positive frame than it is to do so. However, it has been demonstrated[20] that the framing effect can be significantly reduced by rephrasing the choice to include all of the information: "If Program A is approved, then 200 people will survive and 400 people will die."

Try to support your decision. According to research[21], people prefer to switch from the more straightforward heuristic processing mode and adopt a more methodical approach to decision-making when asked to justify their choice.

Query a different person. When we make decisions for other people, framing effects tend to be less powerful[22], perhaps because we are less emotionally invested.

Ask an expert for guidance. According to research[23], when consumers seek guidance from a reliable source, framing effects are significantly diminished and occasionally even abolished. Just make sure that the source of the expert advise is legitimate. For instance, in the 1930s, cigarette advertisements with actors playing "doctors" successfully convinced many people that smoking cigarettes would not be damaging to their health. Unfortunately, these were unreliable sources.

Just keep in mind that everyone has fallen victim to the framing effect at some point or another. The main thing is to learn from your errors and make better decisions the next time you have to make a big choice.                                                                                                                                                          SCITECHDAILY.COM